[Mipshop] FW: Discussion on Proposed Changes to draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key-00.txt

"Vijay Devarapalli" <Vijay.Devarapalli@AzaireNet.com> Mon, 16 July 2007 22:06 UTC

Return-path: <mipshop-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IAYiX-0000Ya-QS; Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:06:57 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IAYiW-0000YU-Oi for mipshop@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:06:56 -0400
Received: from mail2.azairenet.com ([207.47.15.6]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IAYiU-0005KS-V9 for mipshop@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:06:56 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:06:52 -0700
Message-ID: <D4AE20519DDD544A98B3AE9235C8A4C2BB40CF@moe.corp.azairenet.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Discussion on Proposed Changes to draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key-00.txt
Thread-Index: AcfH9Z1UhvqIoYJjRfiKd/CIDhI+6g==
From: Vijay Devarapalli <Vijay.Devarapalli@AzaireNet.com>
To: mipshop@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2857c5c041d6c02d7181d602c22822c8
Subject: [Mipshop] FW: Discussion on Proposed Changes to draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-key-00.txt
X-BeenThere: mipshop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: mipshop.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop>, <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:mipshop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop>, <mailto:mipshop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: mipshop-bounces@ietf.org

Trying again.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Kempf [mailto:kempf@docomolabs-usa.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 9:55 AM
> To: mipshop@ietf.org
> Subject: Discussion on Proposed Changes to
draft-ietf-mipshop-handover-
> key-00.txt
> 
> Folks,
> 
> I'd like to start a thread on two changes I'd like to propose to the
SEND
> keys draft.
> 
> Earlier this year, an issue came up involving the use of the RSA
> authentication key to perform encryption. This is prohibited by RFC
3972.
> In
> general, use of an RSA key for both encryption and authentication is
> discouraged because it is possible that an attacker could compromise
> authentiation by selectively encrypting text. This requires that the
> attacker be able to encrypt text of its choosing. As the RSA SEND
> authentication key is used for encryption in the SEND keys draft, the
only
> material encrypted is controlled by the access router, so the access
> router
> would need to be compromised for this attack to succeed. If the access
> router is compromised, the impact could be considerably more severe
than
> just on FMIP security, of course.
> 
> However, I've been working with Prof. John Mitchell of Stanford and
Arnab
> Roy, his student, who have done much work on proving correctness of
> security
> protocols, on this issue. The problem is that proving correctness is
> difficult if the same key is used for both operations. In addition,
> although
> the use of the key for two purposes isn't such a problem for RSA as
used
> in
> SEND keys, the design is fragile and might be a problem if the
conditions
> around the design change. For example, if algorithm agility is
introduced
> into SEND (something being discussed for CGA-EXT), another algorithm
might
> not have the same properties.
> 
> Therefore, the first change I'd like to propose is that instead of
reusing
> the SEND authentication key, the MN sends a separate RSA key to the AR
and
> the AR uses that key to encrypt the shared key. In order to
accommodate
> future algorithm agility and preserve simplicity, the text should be
> written
> so that the algorithm type used is the same as whatever algorithm is
used
> for SEND. The CGA construction is unchanged, it uses the
authentication
> key,
> and the shared key is tied to the CGA via the authentication on the
> PrRtSol.
> This seems like the simplest possible change.
> 
> Secondly, the current SEND keys draft uses RS/RA in order to perform
the
> key
> provisioning. As the FMIP protocol is currently written, a MN does not
> need
> to use RS/RA if the next hop router information can be obtained using
> PrRtSol/PrRtAdv, though it can. So the MN would need to perform an
> additional message exchange in order to obtain the handover key. The
> additional exchange is not tied to handover, so it does not impact
> handover
> performance, but it will be extra message traffic on the link.
> 
> Therefore, I'd like to propose that the SEND key exchange be moved to
the
> PrRtSol/PrRtAdv. Note that this means both messages must be protected
by
> SEND and that the PrRtSol must have as its source address the CGA for
the
> MN
> and the PrRtAdv must have as its source address the CGA for the AR,
> calculated using the router's certified public key.
> 
> One possible objection to this is that it is not clear at this point
> whether
> the PrRtXXX messages will be deployed even if FMIP is. They depend on
> either
> manually or automatically configuring the access point to access
router
> mappings into the access routers, which might not be something that
access
> network providers want to do. FMIP can be used without these messages,
> even
> though it is specified with them. If that is the case, RS/RA can still
be
> used. Perhaps this could be written as MAY, in order to accommodate
this
> case.
> 
> I'd like to run the discussion for a couple weeks, then when the draft
> gate
> opens after IETF I'll publish the new draft.
> 
> Comments?
> 
>                         jak


_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshop@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop